From Textop Wiki

This is a list of proposed questions around which debate summaries will be build. If interested in playing one of the roles, add your name. '''See [[how to construct a debate summary]] for guidelines,''' and see especially the section titled [[how to construct a debate summary#How a debate summary is constructed|how a debate summary is constructed]]. Add * after your name if you ''are not'' interested in playing the role of "lead summarist."

+

{{dgptemplate}}

-

Debate Guide Project Director: [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]].

+

This is a list of proposed questions around which debate summaries will be built. If interested in playing one of the roles, add your name. '''See [[how to construct a debate summary]] for guidelines,''' and see especially the section titled [[how to construct a debate summary#How a debate summary is constructed|how a debate summary is constructed]]. Add * after your name if you ''are not'' interested in playing the role of "lead summarist."

: What fun. Could the moderator (or someone) define "declarative knowledge" for me? Or better, point to the outline and add some alternative definitions from the literature. (Use pointers, if it is in text that is not open source.) I don't think there is a definition that a basic scientists could accept, but I'm listening! [[User:HowardBurrows|Howard]]

+

: The definition of knowledge, or the conditions of knowledge, is an integral part of this debate. Some people's attacks on skepticism depend precisely on claims about what knowledge does or doesn't require. So it is definitely not the role of a moderator to define anything on this subject. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 10:25, 10 August 2006 (PDT)

: Larry, I suggest you shall be moderator only. There will be somebody available. Lets play clean from the beginning! --[[User:Math|Math]] 22:37, 9 August 2006 (PDT)

: Larry, I suggest you shall be moderator only. There will be somebody available. Lets play clean from the beginning! --[[User:Math|Math]] 22:37, 9 August 2006 (PDT)

: Matthias, I didn't mean to suggest that I could be both mdoerator and summarist. Depending on who shows up, I would go where needed. Anyway, for now I'll remove my name from the negative position. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 10:25, 10 August 2006 (PDT)

: Matthias, I didn't mean to suggest that I could be both mdoerator and summarist. Depending on who shows up, I would go where needed. Anyway, for now I'll remove my name from the negative position. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 10:25, 10 August 2006 (PDT)

-

: ''Your remarks here''

-

-

-------

-

-

-

'''[[DebateGuide: Is knowledge possible?|Is knowledge possible?]]'''

-

: Available to moderate:

-

: Affirmative ("We have some declarative knowledge" ''or should it be the easier modal version?'' "Declarative knowledge is possible"): [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]], [[User:Math|Math]]

: What fun. Could the moderator (or someone) define "declarative knowledge" for me? Or better, point to the outline and add some alternative definitions from the literature. (Use pointers, if it is in text that is not open source.) I don't think there is a definition that a basic scientists could accept, but I'm listening! [[User:HowardBurrows|Howard]]

-

: The definition of knowledge, or the conditions of knowledge, is an integral part of this debate. Some people's attacks on skepticism depend precisely on claims about what knowledge does or doesn't require. So it is definitely not the role of a moderator to define anything on this subject. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 10:25, 10 August 2006 (PDT)

: ''Your remarks here''

: ''Your remarks here''

Line 33:

Line 32:

'''Is free will compatible with determinism?'''

'''Is free will compatible with determinism?'''

+

: ''Status: awaiting quorum''

: Available to moderate:

: Available to moderate:

: Compatibilism ("The existence of free will is compatible with determinism"): [[User:Math|Math]]

: Compatibilism ("The existence of free will is compatible with determinism"): [[User:Math|Math]]

Current revision

This is a list of proposed questions around which debate summaries will be built. If interested in playing one of the roles, add your name. See how to construct a debate summary for guidelines, and see especially the section titled how a debate summary is constructed. Add * after your name if you are not interested in playing the role of "lead summarist."

What fun. Could the moderator (or someone) define "declarative knowledge" for me? Or better, point to the outline and add some alternative definitions from the literature. (Use pointers, if it is in text that is not open source.) I don't think there is a definition that a basic scientists could accept, but I'm listening! Howard

The definition of knowledge, or the conditions of knowledge, is an integral part of this debate. Some people's attacks on skepticism depend precisely on claims about what knowledge does or doesn't require. So it is definitely not the role of a moderator to define anything on this subject. --Larry Sanger 10:25, 10 August 2006 (PDT)

Negative ("The God of the monotheistic religions does not exist"): --Math 00:59, 11 August 2006 (PDT)

Discussion

This is actually a question I honestly have no strong feelings about, and so could (consistently with my proposed rules) take the affirmative position (and, having taught the material many times, with gusto!), if no one else is available. I didn't put my name down on the affirmative side simply because I didn't want to give you the idea that one could propose to take both sides, which (the rules now say) you can't. Also, perhaps we should consider the "agnostic" side; but I would be inclined to make that a separate debate summary, about the question: "Is the existence of God knowable?" --Larry Sanger 21:32, 9 August 2006 (PDT)

Larry, I suggest you shall be moderator only. There will be somebody available. Lets play clean from the beginning! --Math 22:37, 9 August 2006 (PDT)

Matthias, I didn't mean to suggest that I could be both mdoerator and summarist. Depending on who shows up, I would go where needed. Anyway, for now I'll remove my name from the negative position. --Larry Sanger 10:25, 10 August 2006 (PDT)

Your remarks here

Is free will compatible with determinism?

Status: awaiting quorum

Available to moderate:

Compatibilism ("The existence of free will is compatible with determinism"): Math

Incompatibilism ("The existence of free will is not compatible with determinism"):